When discussing the editorial and advertising components of a media outlet, I jokingly refer to them as “church and state.” This is because they are something I try and keep separate when practicing media relations.

Link:

GM is not keeping them separate when it comes to the LA Times. Evidently they are pulling their ads from this major daily due to issues over the editorial coverage and car reviews the automaker receives. GM claims that dealers in the area are complaining about factual errors and misrepresentations of GM.

This move might make GM feel better, and the LA Times notes it is investigating the matter. But will it really help GM in the long run? Any resolution of this matter will be colored by the fact that the undisclosed ad revenue, read: BIG $, was held to get this situation resolved. Wouldn’t a letter writing campaign from every dealer in the greater LA area be just as effective? If the LA Times is in the wrong, I assume this approach would still get them to rectify the situation.

Now GM needs a replacement, um, vehicle to reach customers in the LA market. It also forces the LA Times to be vigilant about positive press for GM in the future.

It seems to me that advertising and editorial needs to be kept on a separate agenda.

What? A post on GM and no mention of the B-Word? No worries, I direct you to Neville Hobson who brings us the latest on GM’s executive blog project.

Kevin Dugan is the author of the popular Strategic Public Relations blog. Kevin is Director of Marketing Communications for FRCH Design Worldwide.

Visit Kevin’s blog: Strategic Public Relations.